United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2002-01-04
21usc841: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)
Case and law context
Role: applied; posture: criminal; jury convictions for distribution of heroin, death resulting (count 1), possession with intent to distribute (count 3) and § 846 conspiracy (count 5), plus two § 860 schoolyard counts; defendant argues § 841(b)(1)(C) requires that death be reasonably foreseeable and that the conspiracy evidence was insufficient; §§ 841/846 convictions affirmed, § 860 convictions reversed; result: claimant-won; claim: (a)(1) & (b)(1)(C)
Uncertainty
other: result is for the § 841 / § 846 counts (1, 3, 5), all affirmed; the reversal concerns only the § 860 schoolyard counts, which are another statute
Element act.distribute: holding: not separately contested on appeal; recorded as the jury's finding left standing by the affirmance of count 1
Element substance: holding: not separately contested on appeal; recorded as the jury's finding left standing by the affirmance
Misfit
None recorded
B · Case × element grid
Top-level elements follow claim order in panels of up to six elements. Case rows repeat across panels. Every recorded block retains its holding and basis; multiple blocks are not merged into a case-level verdict. ✓ satisfied · ✗ not satisfied · ○ not reached · · not addressed. Muted blocks are not counted. Sub-element evidence remains on case and element pages.
Elements 1–6 of 18
| Case | Mens rea: "knowingly or intentionally" (including knowledge that the substance is a controlled substance) | Controlled substance (21 U.S.C. §§ 802(6), 812 Schedules I-V) or counterfeit substance (§ 841(a)(2)) | Authorization exception ("Except as authorized by this subchapter") for registered practitioners/handlers | Possession (actual, constructive, sole, or joint dominion and control) | Specific intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense the possessed controlled substance | Partial penalty-tier drug type and quantity table (selected § 841(b)(1)(A)-(D) hook) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| United States v. Soler — 275 F.3d 146 (2002) · United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2002 (21usc841: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | ○ not reached · basis not recordedNot counted: applied/merits | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Elements 7–12 of 18
Elements 13–18 of 18
| Case | Drug conspiracy route under 21 U.S.C. § 846 (cross-statute) | Fifth Amendment Due Process / Equal Protection challenge to carrier-medium weight sentencing (Chapman) | Affirmative defense of entrapment (government inducement + lack of predisposition) | Rule of lenity in construing ambiguous penalty provisions of § 841(b) | Fifth Amendment void-for-vagueness challenge to "mixture or substance" or analogue provisions | Continuing-offense venue for § 841(a)(1) possession with intent to distribute / distribution (18 U.S.C. § 3237(a)) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| United States v. Soler — 275 F.3d 146 (2002) · United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2002 (21usc841: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Instances and excluded annotation blocks
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| United States v. Soler — 275 F.3d 146 (2002) · United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2002 — satisfied · proved (21usc841: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Distribution (delivery / actual, constructive, or attempted transfer of a controlled substance) | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: proved; claim: (a)(1) & (b)(1)(C) Defendant sold twenty bags of heroin for $200 to buyers on the third-floor landing. The distribution itself was not contested on appeal. | hand-to-hand-sale-of-stamped-bags-at-apartment-landing | The appellant retreated inside and emerged with twenty plastic bags labeled “Me Salve.” He handed them to Dudek in exchange for cash.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_275.jsonl#/f3d/275/0146-01; Unicode character offsets [1990:2123] (end exclusive); SHA-256 5ab68c28f5b4b624f668f41f8373fac72a69928b0a54ce5ed72262af98a77b09.The appellant confessed at one point that he had been selling Me Salve heroin but that his supply of Me Salve had been exhausted on July 22, at which point he switched to Blunt.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_275.jsonl#/f3d/275/0146-01; Unicode character offsets [24887:25064] (end exclusive); SHA-256 5ab68c28f5b4b624f668f41f8373fac72a69928b0a54ce5ed72262af98a77b09. |
| United States v. Soler — 275 F.3d 146 (2002) · United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2002 — satisfied · law (21usc841: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Death or serious bodily injury results from the use of such substance (§ 841(b)(1)(A)-(C) 20-year mandatory minimum) | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: law; claim: (a)(1) & (b)(1)(C) Pure question of law: § 841(b)(1)(C) imposes strict liability for death resulting from the use of drugs the defendant himself distributed and contains no reasonable-foreseeability requirement. The defendant argued the death was unforeseeable because the victim snorted the heroin believing it was cocaine. The jury was instructed on but-for causation; causation itself was not contested on appeal. | buyer-snorted-heroin-believing-it-cocaine | The men drove to Thompson’s apartment in Chicopee, where all three proceeded to snort heroin until they collapsed.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_275.jsonl#/f3d/275/0146-01; Unicode character offsets [2318:2432] (end exclusive); SHA-256 5ab68c28f5b4b624f668f41f8373fac72a69928b0a54ce5ed72262af98a77b09.The paramedics rushed all three men to the hospital and, soon thereafter, Thompson was pronounced dead.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_275.jsonl#/f3d/275/0146-01; Unicode character offsets [2641:2744] (end exclusive); SHA-256 5ab68c28f5b4b624f668f41f8373fac72a69928b0a54ce5ed72262af98a77b09.Despite having consumed between ten and twenty beers apiece, the other three drove to Holyoke in search of cocaine.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_275.jsonl#/f3d/275/0146-01; Unicode character offsets [1336:1451] (end exclusive); SHA-256 5ab68c28f5b4b624f668f41f8373fac72a69928b0a54ce5ed72262af98a77b09.By its terms, the statute of conviction applies whenever “death ... results” from the use of drugs supplied by the defendant. 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C). The fact that the statute does not speak to the defendant’s state of mind undercuts the appellant’s argument that we should impose some kind of foreseeability test.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_275.jsonl#/f3d/275/0146-01; Unicode character offsets [11605:11921] (end exclusive); SHA-256 5ab68c28f5b4b624f668f41f8373fac72a69928b0a54ce5ed72262af98a77b09.Thus, when a defendant deals drugs and a user of those drugs dies as a result, section 841(b)(1)(C) apples without any independent proof that the death was a reasonably foreseeable event. Because the lower court correctly apprehended this point, we affirm the appellant’s conviction on count 1.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_275.jsonl#/f3d/275/0146-01; Unicode character offsets [13754:14048] (end exclusive); SHA-256 5ab68c28f5b4b624f668f41f8373fac72a69928b0a54ce5ed72262af98a77b09. |
| United States v. Soler — 275 F.3d 146 (2002) · United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2002 — not reached (21usc841: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Mens rea: "knowingly or intentionally" (including knowledge that the substance is a controlled substance) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits claim: (a)(1) & (b)(1)(C) Knowledge not contested on appeal. | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| United States v. Soler — 275 F.3d 146 (2002) · United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2002 — satisfied · conceded (21usc841: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Recidivist enhancement for prior conviction for a serious drug felony or serious violent felony (§ 841(b)(1), 21 U.S.C. § 851) | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: conceded; claim: (a)(1) & (b)(1)(C) Prior felony drug convictions established under 21 U.S.C. § 851. | final-prior-drug-felony | The court sentences were enhanced because the government, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 851, appropriately brought to the court’s attention the appellant’s previous convictions for unrelated drug-trafficking felonies.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_275.jsonl#/f3d/275/0146-01; Unicode character offsets [5138:5349] (end exclusive); SHA-256 5ab68c28f5b4b624f668f41f8373fac72a69928b0a54ce5ed72262af98a77b09. |
| United States v. Soler — 275 F.3d 146 (2002) · United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2002 — satisfied · proved (21usc841: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Controlled substance (21 U.S.C. §§ 802(6), 812 Schedules I-V) or counterfeit substance (§ 841(a)(2)) | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: proved; claim: (a)(1) & (b)(1)(C) Heroin; identity of the substance was not contested on appeal. | heroin-sold-to-buyers-seeking-cocaine | As matters turned out, the bags contained heroin, not cocaine.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_275.jsonl#/f3d/275/0146-01; Unicode character offsets [2124:2186] (end exclusive); SHA-256 5ab68c28f5b4b624f668f41f8373fac72a69928b0a54ce5ed72262af98a77b09. |
| United States v. Soler — 275 F.3d 146 (2002) · United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2002 — satisfied · proved (21usc841: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Drug conspiracy route under 21 U.S.C. § 846 (cross-statute) | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: proved; claim: (a)(1) & (b)(1)(C) Sufficiency of the conspiracy evidence (count 5) upheld: the defendant and an uncharged woman sold identically stamped heroin from the same apartment over two days and pooled the proceeds; "mere presence" and "single sale" arguments rejected. | two-sellers-same-apartment-same-stamped-inventory-pooled-cash | The two alleged coconspirators were operating out of the same “store” and selling identically marked bags from the same inventory.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_275.jsonl#/f3d/275/0146-01; Unicode character offsets [8847:8977] (end exclusive); SHA-256 5ab68c28f5b4b624f668f41f8373fac72a69928b0a54ce5ed72262af98a77b09.Finally, and perhaps most damagingly, the $20 bills tendered to the pregnant woman and to the appellant, respectively, were found commingled in a pile of cash stored with the drugs.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_275.jsonl#/f3d/275/0146-01; Unicode character offsets [9074:9255] (end exclusive); SHA-256 5ab68c28f5b4b624f668f41f8373fac72a69928b0a54ce5ed72262af98a77b09.Both of them were in the apartment at the time of the police raid — and both attempted to flee.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_275.jsonl#/f3d/275/0146-01; Unicode character offsets [8978:9073] (end exclusive); SHA-256 5ab68c28f5b4b624f668f41f8373fac72a69928b0a54ce5ed72262af98a77b09.To prove the existence of a conspiracy under 21 U.S.C. § 846, “the government must present clear evidence sufficient to show beyond a reasonable doubt that an agreement to commit the substantive offense actually existed, and that the individual defendant knew of the agreement, had intent to agree, and had intent to commit the substantive offense.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_275.jsonl#/f3d/275/0146-01; Unicode character offsets [6355:6704] (end exclusive); SHA-256 5ab68c28f5b4b624f668f41f8373fac72a69928b0a54ce5ed72262af98a77b09.We think that a rational jury easily could conclude — as this jury did— that these activities came within the scope of a tacit agreement between the two co-conspirators.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_275.jsonl#/f3d/275/0146-01; Unicode character offsets [10397:10566] (end exclusive); SHA-256 5ab68c28f5b4b624f668f41f8373fac72a69928b0a54ce5ed72262af98a77b09. |